Talk:Paternity (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Common law/Civil law/Other systems

We have a lot of information here, but no clue as to which jurisdiction(s) it applies to. - Montréalais 19:09, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree, entirely. As it is, it implies that every human society bases its laws on canon law, and has a concept of common law. Anglo-Saxon-centrism (or, more usually, US-centrism) is a serious flaw in this project Flobster 10:01, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's not a problem with the project, it's a problem with the page. Go fix it, don't complain. Fix it wherever you see it. Be bold in updating pages. -- Tim Starling 10:46, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

I know nothing of paterity law in other legal systems - or my own, for that matter - Flobster 10:48, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article is pretty clear, it is a general article that applies to common law systems and it discusses principles that operate in civil law systems that find the origins in the roman or canon law. Anyone want to add a section about paternity under African tribal customs or paternity under the Torah or Koran? [[User:Alex756|— Alex756 User_talk:Alex756 talk 15:48, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The alternative to roman-derived systems (and I seriously doubt that the article applies to them all) isn't just 'African tribal customs' it's the vast majority of the world's population and cultures. The article writes about a small miority as if it was dominant system. - Flobster

Please sign your posts, What is a "miority"? I think that paternity is a western legal concept, and if it is then this article is accurate. If you have any knowledge, just share it rather than being critical in such a negative way. Perhaps you don't know what you are talking about and just like complaining about things you know nothing about? Making assertions that the article writes about a "small miority" (whatever that is) without any evidence is just a waste of the time of editors who are trying to write complete articles. Where is the evidence, the citations, the quotes, etc.? That would be useful to rewriting this article, not just complaining. — Alex756 User_talk:Alex756 talk]

My posts ARE signed, aren't they? I imagine that paternity is a legal concept in every society that recognises it as a biological concept (the Trobriand Islanders didn't, traditionally). I am pointing out that the article reads as though it is addressing the entire human experience but in fact it doesn't. It is, in that sense, highly POV. As a discussion of paternity law in the British common law tradition (although disregarding legislative chages in all but US jusrisdictions) it sems fine but it should have made clear that this is what it is doing. Flobster 03:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "Paternity fraud" to Paternity (law)

I think the issue of paternity fraud should be left in the discussion of Paternity (law) and not as a separate discussion on paternity fraud. The question of defining paternity is one area of active legislative movement, and there are many states in the U.S. which have opted to modernize laws to make for greater use of genetic test results in the question of defining legal paternity. In this sense, common law doctrine discussed in the introduction to this page is not longer strictly applicable due to these modifications. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juliandroms (talk • contribs).

Oppose - separate concepts, as is illustrated by the legal cases. Related to deception/fraud and in some cases for gain. Paul foord 05:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)